Monday, April 30, 2007

GMU campus coverage of the John Lewis event

Here's a link to the GMU campus paper's coverage of Dr. John Lewis's talk on Islamic totalitarianism. You have to savor the reported remarks of Jasper Conner, the front man for the "Students for a Democratic Society" attempting to defend the rude and disruptive conduct of the members of his organization.

"That's a message not of 'we don’t accept your right to speak,' but of 'we will not be an audience for your call to violence and your intolerance and your ethnocentric view of the world,” says Conner.

If Conner and his ilk were not going to be an "audience," they would have stayed at home. Instead, they acted like savages, ignoring the reasoning of the speaker, misrepresenting the speaker's actual position, and then somehow attempting to justify their behavior in the end.

One thing is certain: the name of Conner's group is fittingly appropriate: it is the New Left all over again, complete with the same ignorance, intellectual deceit and outright thuggery.

15 comments:

Jack Galt
said...

I say Conner is an idiot and I'm sure his instructors are proud of their handiwork. To frame the defeat of Islamic totalitarianism as a call to "violence" is patently absurd; one (barely) wonders then if Conner would decry any form of self-defense merely on the grounds that it is violent.

And to call Lewis an "intolerant ethnocentric" is similarly idiotic. Lewis clearly argues against a specific form of thinking and action and not against anyone's race (even the college paper was able to make this point clear).

Furthermore, Conner and his ilk can't have it both ways—they can's attack Lewis' ideas against intolerance and bigotry without revealing themselves to be bigots themselves, albeit of the anti-west, anti-individualism, anti-freedom ilk.

Although your obsession with me is really flattering, you really need to think before you post things. Lewis is ethnocentric, as is your entire capitalist organization. I'm not sure how you could deny that. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of your own culture(so says wikipedia). Lewis was calling for us to attack another country based on the idea that it would serve our self-interest. This is an ethnocentric view, as it values the lives and culture of our country more than other countries. His devaluation of Islamic law, not to mention is outright bigoted views(he claimed that its typical for Muslim men to beat their wives!) are racist and ethnocentric. I'm not sure who you think my instructors are. My radical professors at GMU, please, I have one marxist professor who doesn't even advocate revolution. You folks should get over yourselves, even the head republican(read: facist) at mason was quoted as saying that he only agreed with half of what lewis said. As far as the comment that we should have stayed home, do you understand the point of a protest? Our goal was to show our tremendous distaste for what was said. Our goal was also to stand in solidarity with the muslim community which is still outraged that the college supported this hate speech directed at them. You should understand that such calls for violence against islamic states can and do make many muslim students feel unsafe. However, I would suggest that this capitalist cult probably isn't concerned with their feelings, unless of course it hampers your profit margin.

Thank you for defining your terms and citing sources; it provides an insightful view of your confusion.

The definition you cite for ethnocentric is from the muddle of Sociology, as opposed to common and clear usage of the word. This confusion in Sociology, yourself and your ilk of ethnicity and culture in the definition derives from a racism descendent from Germanic philosophy (See Peikoff‘s _Ominous Parallels_ for elaboration).

Dr. Lewis's argument is not ethnic but ideological in that the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. This idea is what you protested, and that is the antithesis of the Islamic totalitarianism that you choose to support.

>Lewis was calling for us to attack another country based on the idea that it would serve our self-interest.

That's half right. Lewis is calling for us to attack a threatening totalitarian regime based on the idea that it would serve our self-interest, i.e. our desire to live our own lives free of their violence and tyranny. If the Iranian government would act like Turkey (that is, show no desire for blood in the name of jihad) it would be treated and respected as such. Instead, Iran is the fountainhead of religious war and it inspires—if not outright supports—all religious warriors by showing that you can wage this war and not pay the appropriate penalty. Lewis is correct to argue that such conduct is unacceptable; he is correct in identifying that the rational owe nothing to the irrational.

>This is an ethnocentric view, as it values the lives and culture of our country more than other countries.

No. This is a rational view. It values the lives of the free and otherwise peaceful more than it values the lives of the would-be enslavers. And notice that the leftists never see the Islamic totalitarians as being guilty of "ethnocentrism." That slur is reserved only for the free peoples of this earth.

>His devaluation of Islamic law, not to mention is outright bigoted views (he claimed that its typical for Muslim men to beat their wives!) are racist and ethnocentric.

Tell that to the female Afghani doctor who was stoned to death for daring to practice medicine in defiance of the Taliban. Tell that to the Saudi schoolgirls who were allowed to burn to death in their school rather than be seen without their veils. Tell that to the victims of "honor killings" because they refused their arranged marriages and dared to take a lover of their own choosing. Tell them the value of this Islamic law that they must submit to—even if they reject the creed of Islam and wish to live their lives for themselves.

> You should understand that such calls for violence against Islamic states can and do make many Muslim students feel unsafe.

If they choose to cast their lot with the totalitarianists, I suppose that's true, just as a Nazi living in the US would feel "unsafe" at speeches decrying the evils of Nazism. I say tough luck for them if that's the stand they choose to take.

>Is generalizing about the nature of a group -- such as "the students at GMU" -- based on the behavior of one or a few members of that group a logical generalization?

We only know of Jasper because he and his friends effectively shouted down a voice that they disagreed with, which is an act of thuggery that runs counter to the mission of any institution of higher learning. To my knowledge, neither Jasper or his fellow students have been sanctioned by the university for their conduct. That can only mean that such students "fit in" and are accepted despite their repugnant and disruptive their behavior.

As an institution, GMU appears to be quite conflicted over just what academic freedom is and why it is important to its faculty, students and guests. This is a philosophic deficit that speaks to the character of both the university and those in it. As such, my opinion of the GMU and its students has lessoned.

We agree on the latter half. If the original statement was sarcasm alone then why did the author reformulate it as an argument, and in a more elaborate form?

If, however, you are convinced the original statement was sarcasm, would you explain how you arrived at your conclusion? In other words, what is your proof that the original statement was meant only as sarcasm?

Although your obsession with me is really flattering, you really need to think before you post things. Lewis is ethnocentric, as is your entire capitalist organization.

Lewis is “ethno-centric” in that he has a certain Western view and is a very staunch supporter of ideas like individual rights, science, and objective art. And that, sir, is a good thing. So, being “ethno-centric” can be good and is very good in his case. However, if he’s like me, then he wants to take the best from all cultures and junk the rest.

But then, I don’t accept postmodernist jargon.

I'm not sure how you could deny that. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of your own culture(so says wikipedia).

There is a real world, which can be objectively understood. That’s how we are able to discover laws of nature, build rockets, cure diseases, and derive individual rights.

Btw, I disagree with Lewis on one point, the Muslim religion is fundamentally violent and dangerous to the extent it’s taken seriously, as are all religions, because religion by its very nature severs the mind from reality, and the end result of that is death and destruction.

His devaluation of Islamic law,

It is a disvalue to anyone who values life. Islamic law IS offensive and disgusting beyond belief. It’s brutal and repressive to the nth degree. I’ve seen video tapes of stonings of women with the Ayatollah looking on in approval. They try to find just the right sized stones to maximize suffering before the victim dies. The “crimes” for which this punishment is meted out are usually things like committing adultery. And there was one young girl who was hung by an Iman about two years ago in Iran because she stood up to him. Yup, that was her crime. You can’t speak out loudly enough against this evil. YOU are offensive for defending such evil.

If you see value in such primitive religious doctrine, then you know little about it or you have little regard for human life. Take your pick.

not to mention is outright bigoted views(he claimed that its typical for Muslim men to beat their wives!) are racist and ethnocentric.

I’m sick to death of you racists calling everyone else what you are. Take it somewhere else, because it has no currency. The religion has zero to do with race, so the entire claim is spurious. Apparently you are being mis-educated big time. Perhaps you should demand your money back.

You folks should get over yourselves, even the head republican(read: facist)

He’s not a fascist, however I don’t have such a kind view of those who protested Lewis. And those questioners were, almost to a man, postmodernists, which is worse than fascism.

at mason was quoted as saying that he only agreed with half of what lewis said. As far as the comment that we should have stayed home, do you understand the point of a protest? Our goal was to show our tremendous distaste for what was said.

But you have been wrong from the ground up. You have nothing to offer. I’m not sure why you think you have.

Our goal was also to stand in solidarity with the muslim community

Our goal is to keep muslims from murdering, maiming and imprisoning innocent people, especially Americans (e.g. Fort Dix). I’m going to defend my life and the lives of those I value. War is war. So, we have different goals. It’d also be great if they wouldn’t oppress people, especially women, but I guess you don’t care about people.

which is still outraged that the college supported this hate speech directed at them.

*HATRED* of evil is good. The charge “hate speech” is an attempt at thought control (by small minded sorts), and the motive of those doing it is that they fear ideas they can’t refute. And, I might add, they are also trying to take away our right to be righteously angry over something that it is logical to be righteously angry over. This is why that questioner said Lewis appeared angry, as if this is somehow wrong. It’s not … by a long shot.

You should understand that such calls for violence against islamic states can and do make many muslim students feel unsafe.

I’m concerned with Americans and American freedoms first and foremost, because this is where my values lie. As to Islamic students feeling unsafe, stop playing ignorant. You know full well the whole context here is that we are at war with muslims. They are at war with us. They have the responsibility to show they mean *us* no harm. That’s the fact.

When you realize that your third-rate, postmodernist jargon is a house of cards, you’ll realize who is right here and who is wrong. We’re defending the West, and all of its enormous values, you’re attacking the West and all of its enormous values, including our right to a “profit margin” (we don’t believe in theft, either).

It you don’t think it has enormous values, then stop using your television. Stop using the Internet. Stop playing video games, driving cars, and using modern medicine. Stop eating a million varieties of food available in Western grocers. Stop being a hypocrite.